Hundreds of demonstrators in the Iranian capital clashed with riot police on Wednesday, during protests against the crisis over the country's currency. Police used batons and teargas to try to disperse the crowds.

The day after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appealed to the market to restore calm, the Grand Bazaar – the heartbeat of Tehran's economy – went on strike, with various businesses shutting down and owners gathering in scattered groups chanting anti-government slogans in reaction to the plummeting value of the rial, which has hit an all-time low this week.

"Mahmoud [Ahmadinejad] the traitor … leave politics," shouted some protesters, according to witnesses who spoke to the Guardian. Other slogans were "Leave Syria alone, instead think of us," said opposition website Kaleme.com.

Iran's alleged financial and military support for the regime of Bashar al-Assad appears to have infuriated protesters in the wake of the country's worst financial crisis since the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

Angry protesters and foreign exchange dealers were demonstrating near the bazaar in the south of the capital, where many exchange bureaux are located.

"The Bazaaris shouted 'Allahu Akbar' [God is great] as they closed down their shops in the morning," said a witness. "It's impossible to do business in the current situation." Amateur videos posted on YouTube which appeared to have been taken from Wednesday's protests, showed demonstrators encouraging Bazaaris to close down shops in solidarity. Security forces were soon sent to quell the protests.

"They used teargas to disperse demonstrators in Ferdowsi Street and also blocked the streets close to the protests in order to prevent people joining them," said another witness, who asked to remain anonymous. "Some shop windows in that area have been smashed and dustbins set on fire." A number of demonstrators had been arrested, according to Kaleme.

A bazaar official, Ahmad Karimi Esfahani, denied that the "turbulences" were linked to the business owners, claiming said shops were closed for security reasons and not as part of a strike. "The bazaar will open tomorrow as normal," he told the semi-official Ilna news agency. A conservative website, Baztab, described the clashes as "suspicious", denying Bazaaris were involved.

The devaluation of the rial and soaring prices of staple goods are the latest signs that western sanctions – targeting the regime's nuclear programme – and government mismanagement are compounding the country's economic woes.

On Wednesday, many foreign exchange dealers and bureaux across the country refused to trade dollars and some currency-monitoring websites refused to announce exchange rates.

Some Iranians expressed anger on social networking websites over the national TV blackout of the protests, saying it discussed the European financial crisis with little if any coverage of Tehran's unrest. The authorities were also reported to have jammed signals of the BBC's Persian service as the protest unfolded.

The government has failed to bring the rial under control despite several attempts. It has lost 57% of its value in the past three months and 75% in comparison with the end of last year. The dollar is now three times stronger than early last year. The economy minister, Shamseddin Hosseini, said the government planned to "gather up" the unofficial currency market in the latest desperate ditch to curb the crisis.

On Tuesday Iranian authorities announced they would send security services to calm the market but Wednesday's developments appear to show that the move has backfired.

Ahmadinejad was bombarded with questions about the currency crisis on Tuesday as he spoke to reporters in a press conference but the embattled president, who is under fire from his conservative rivals, rejected the suggestion that it was the result of his economic policies or government incompetence.

Instead, he blamed the rial's slump on his enemies abroad and opponents at home, saying his government was the victim of a "psychological war". Ahmadinejad acknowledged western sanctions have contributed to the crisis.

An opinion poll posted on a conservative website, Khabaronline.ir, showed that more than 90% of those participated were not convinced with Ahmadinejad's responses on Tuesday.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaking to elites on Wednesday, said the country was under pressure because "it did not yield to the demands of tyrannies".

Iran is one of the world's largest oil producers and relies on crude sales as the main source of its the foreign currency reserves. The latest US and EU embargo on the imports of Iranian oil has affected that reserve, sending the rial tailspinning and making the dollar hard to come by.

Commenting on Iran's currency slump, the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said that sanctions could be "remedied" swiftly if Tehran were cooperating with the international community to address the questions about its disputed nuclear programme.

"They have made their own government decisions - having nothing to do with the sanctions - that have had an impact on the economic conditions inside of the country," Clinton told reporters.

"Of course the sanctions have had an impact as well, but those could be remedied in short order if the Iranian government were willing to work with the P5+1 [the five security council members plus Germany] and the rest of the international community in a sincere manner," she added.

That depends on the goal. If the goal is to cripple and humilite a sovereign state, maintain a nuclear balance of power where only Israel can threaten its neighbors wih atomic attack, establish the equivalent of an illegal trade blockade, drive up the global price of oil and subjugate another country to IMF colonization, then yes. They appear to be working.

saxitoxin wrote:That depends on the goal. If the goal is to cripple and humilite a sovereign state, maintain a nuclear balance of power where only Israel can threaten its neighbors wih atomic attack, establish the equivalent of an illegal trade blockade, drive up the global price of oil and subjugate another country to IMF colonization, then yes. They appear to be working.

I agree.

However keep in mind that the shit house rat crazy level of leadership in that country helps the argument to subject that country to capitalist machinations. Has Israel even threatened to nuke Iran in any other context that retaliation of attack? Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, so if I have to trust one or the other to hold the neutrons it wouldn't be too hard of a decision. (Not that I'm a big fan of either team on the field.)

The problem with economic sanctions is that they hurt the commoner, not anyone in the ruling class.The purpose is to cause grass roots unrest until you have a situation where the leadership capitulates to prevent local uprising. This of course can backfire when the government just goes the Syria route and slaughters all of those who have the nerve to be vocal about their starving children/failed business/eroding medical capabilities, ect....

Fucking Americans and their gunboat diplomacy planted the seeds that brought us to this, I predict military conflict on the ground in Iran in less than 24 months.

saxitoxin wrote:That depends on the goal. If the goal is to cripple and humilite a sovereign state, maintain a nuclear balance of power where only Israel can threaten its neighbors wih atomic attack, establish the equivalent of an illegal trade blockade, drive up the global price of oil and subjugate another country to IMF colonization, then yes. They appear to be working.

I agree.

However keep in mind that the shit house rat crazy level of leadership in that country helps the argument to subject that country to capitalist machinations. Has Israel even threatened to nuke Iran in any other context that retaliation of attack? Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, so if I have to trust one or the other to hold the neutrons it wouldn't be too hard of a decision. Not that I'm a big fan of either team on the field.

jrock

I for one don't like the thought of ANY country having nukes, the US and Israel most DEFINITELY included

as far as sanctions: I don't know enough to make an informed opinion so... kittens

John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!

Sax makes a great point: in order to determine the effectiveness of a sanction, you have to mention the goals.

Fire Knight presents a great article. Best part:

As Prof. Mearsheimer concludes:

"...the populations of modern states can absorb great amounts of pain without rising up against their governments. There is not a single case in the historical record in which either a blockade or a strategic bombing campaign designed to punish an enemy's population caused significant public protests against the target government. If anything, it appears that 'punishment generates more public anger against the attacker than against the target government.'"

Great examples: Germany's bombing campaign against the UK 1940s. The US bombing Dresden and other civilian centers. And arguably, the US nuking Japan (the 2nd nuke 'won' them over but so did the Russian Threat).

Sanctions have kept Iran economically weaker than it would have been without them, thus rendering its military capabilities less effective. The US did the essentially same with Iraq, after the Gulf War for about 10 years (caveat: US + UK had occasional bombing campaigns in Iraq, focusing on the energy sector and other valuable facilities).

Does this mean that sanctions are imposed because the US wishes to invade the country? Or to put it mildly: does it mean that the US merely wishes to broaden its hawkish options?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Does this mean that sanctions are imposed because the US wishes to invade the country? Or to put it mildly: does it mean that the US merely wishes to broaden its hawkish options?

Sanctions are the standard opening move toward eventual war. The politicians and the sycophants will try to argue that sanctions are an attempt to avert war, but history shows that sanctions are the opening salvo before the real shooting begins.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Does this mean that sanctions are imposed because the US wishes to invade the country? Or to put it mildly: does it mean that the US merely wishes to broaden its hawkish options?

Sanctions are the standard opening move toward eventual war. The politicians and the sycophants will try to argue that sanctions are an attempt to avert war, but history shows that sanctions are the opening salvo before the real shooting begins.

saxitoxin wrote:That depends on the goal. If the goal is to cripple and humilite a sovereign state, maintain a nuclear balance of power where only Israel can threaten its neighbors wih atomic attack, establish the equivalent of an illegal trade blockade, drive up the global price of oil and subjugate another country to IMF colonization, then yes. They appear to be working.

I agree.

However keep in mind that the shit house rat crazy level of leadership in that country helps the argument to subject that country to capitalist machinations. Has Israel even threatened to nuke Iran in any other context that retaliation of attack? Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, so if I have to trust one or the other to hold the neutrons it wouldn't be too hard of a decision. (Not that I'm a big fan of either team on the field.)

Getting upset about alleged Iranian statements about "wiping Israel off the map" is like getting upset at the exterminator for advertising on TV.

If the "State of Israel" doesn't want to be crushed like a cockroach, it should stop acting like a pest.

Johnny Rockets wrote:This of course can backfire when the government just goes the Syria route and slaughters all of those who have the nerve to be vocal about their starving children/failed business/eroding medical capabilities, ect....

saxitoxin wrote:If the "State of Israel" doesn't want to be crushed like a cockroach, it should stop acting like a pest.

A statement with a troubling history.

the history of that entire region is troubled...

Ah, but Saxi was employing a few nasty historical anti-semitic themes with that. Jewish people as pests and cockroaches. His opposition to the Israeli position on Iran seems to indicate something darker.

saxitoxin wrote:If the "State of Israel" doesn't want to be crushed like a cockroach, it should stop acting like a pest.

A statement with a troubling history.

the history of that entire region is troubled...

Ah, but Saxi was employing a few nasty historical anti-semitic themes with that. Jewish people as pests and cockroaches. His opposition to the Israeli position on Iran seems to indicate something darker.

If he's being serious, that's troubling.

If he's not, I don't think he should be flirting with it.

hmm... good point, and one I didn't think of immediately

John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!

saxitoxin wrote:If the "State of Israel" doesn't want to be crushed like a cockroach, it should stop acting like a pest.

A statement with a troubling history.

the history of that entire region is troubled...

Ah, but Saxi was employing a few nasty historical anti-semitic themes with that. Jewish people as pests and cockroaches. His opposition to the Israeli position on Iran seems to indicate something darker.

saxitoxin wrote:If the "State of Israel" doesn't want to be crushed like a cockroach, it should stop acting like a pest.

A statement with a troubling history.

the history of that entire region is troubled...

Ah, but Saxi was employing a few nasty historical anti-semitic themes with that. Jewish people as pests and cockroaches. His opposition to the Israeli position on Iran seems to indicate something darker.

saxitoxin wrote:If the "State of Israel" doesn't want to be crushed like a cockroach, it should stop acting like a pest.

A statement with a troubling history.

the history of that entire region is troubled...

Ah, but Saxi was employing a few nasty historical anti-semitic themes with that. Jewish people as pests and cockroaches. His opposition to the Israeli position on Iran seems to indicate something darker.

If he's being serious, that's troubling.

If he's not, I don't think he should be flirting with it.

hmm... good point, and one I didn't think of immediately

No problem. He's too smart not to know what he was doing.

in my defense, I do know a decent bit about the history of that area, and someone like saxi saying what he did is rather mild compared to things others have said and done to the area and its inhabitants...

John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!

saxitoxin wrote:Speaking of Jewish history, two important events happened last week:

- October 2, 1187: After capturing Jerusalem, Sultan Saladin the Great orders the return of all Jewish property previously confiscated by the crusaders.

- October 5, 1450: Jews expelled from Bavaria

It's culturally insensitive for Europeans to frame anti-Semitism inside the bookends of their own experience. The history of the rest of the world isn't necessarily as terrible.

*rolls eyes* saxi, the history just about EVERYWHERE is terrible! humankind has been doing evil things to itself across the globe since before recorded history even began, and will continue to do so until the end of it...

John Adams wrote:I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is called a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more become a Congress! And by God I have had this Congress!

Iran has imposed a fixed dollar rate in a bid to reverse a collapse of its currency, days after protests erupted over the rial's plunge on the open market.

The order on Saturday came as ordinary Iranians struggled with growing economic problems that caused a big jump in daily prices.

Iranian news agencies reported that the government's new foreign exchange centre, used by importers of some basic goods, was selling US dollars at a rate of 25,970 rials.

"We received an order from the Money Changers' Association [under the control of the Central Bank] telling us to buy the dollar at 25,000 rials and sell at 26,000," one exchange bureau employee told the AFP news agency.

"Nobody is selling at this price and we are not trading," he said on Saturday.

Violent protests

The bureaux in the central Ferdowsi area of Tehran were open for the first time since Wednesday's protests, in which scuffles broke out between police and stone-throwing individuals.

The state-linked news agencies, as well as Iranian currency-tracking website Mesghal, said the rial was trading in the free market at 28,500, much stronger than levels near 37,500 early in the week.

But dealers in Tehran and Dubai, a major centre for business with Iran, told the Reuters news agency there was almost no trade in the free market because rates indicated by state media were not commonly accepted.

The mass of Iranians obtain hard currency for business and foreign travel, and to protect their savings against inflation which is widely believed to be running above 25 per cent, from the free market.

Money changers in Tehran "tell us not even to call them to ask the price of currency. They say they are not giving rates," a merchant in the capital said by telephone. He declined to be named because of the political sensitivity of the issue.

A message on Mazanex, an Iranian currency-tracking website, read: "Unfortunately we still cannot access rates to cite for the domestic market."

The website of SarafiJalali.com, a Tehran-based money changer, said: "To comply with the policies of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and to help organise the currency market of Iran, Sarafi Jalali for now will not announce any rates. Subject to permission from the central bank, the announcement of a new rate will be made." It did not elaborate.

Western sanctions

Under pressure from Western economic sanctions against Iran, the rial hit a record low of around 37,500 to the US dollar last Tuesday, losing about a third of its value in 10 days.

Most free market trade of the rial in Tehran and Dubai then ground to a halt because dealers feared being targeted by police for quoting rates that displeased the government, and because of the huge financial risks of trading such a volatile currency.

If the free market in currencies stays frozen, Iranians may become unable to conduct businesses that involve imports, while foreign travel and study abroad may be curtailed. This could increase discontent with the government's economic management.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has put the blame of the currency collapse on the economic sanctions. But his hardline critics say the fault mostly lies with his government's monetary policies.

The US government has said sanctions relief could quickly occur if Tehran curbed its disputed nuclear programme, which Western countries suspect is cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran's leaders, who insist their atomic programme is exclusively peaceful in nature, have vowed never to yield to the pressure.

saxitoxin wrote:That depends on the goal. If the goal is to cripple and humilite a sovereign state, maintain a nuclear balance of power where only Israel can threaten its neighbors wih atomic attack, establish the equivalent of an illegal trade blockade, drive up the global price of oil and subjugate another country to IMF colonization, then yes. They appear to be working.

I agree.

However keep in mind that the shit house rat crazy level of leadership in that country helps the argument to subject that country to capitalist machinations. Has Israel even threatened to nuke Iran in any other context that retaliation of attack? Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, so if I have to trust one or the other to hold the neutrons it wouldn't be too hard of a decision. (Not that I'm a big fan of either team on the field.)

The problem with economic sanctions is that they hurt the commoner, not anyone in the ruling class.The purpose is to cause grass roots unrest until you have a situation where the leadership capitulates to prevent local uprising. This of course can backfire when the government just goes the Syria route and slaughters all of those who have the nerve to be vocal about their starving children/failed business/eroding medical capabilities, ect....

Fucking Americans and their gunboat diplomacy planted the seeds that brought us to this, I predict military conflict on the ground in Iran in less than 24 months.

jrock

I love that last line... makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.... nice one!

The US government has said sanctions relief could quickly occur if Tehran curbed its disputed nuclear programme, which Western countries suspect is cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran's leaders, who insist their atomic programme is exclusively peaceful in nature, have vowed never to yield to the pressure.

The lapdogging of Al-Jazeera simply reinforces the pro-western bloviations of the rapist crackhead who runs Qatar.

In his September lecture to the Commonwealth Club of California, the Islamic Republic's former nuclear negotiator Seyed Hossein Mousavian, points out that it was actually the west that forced Iran to enrich uranium to the 20% level in order to save people with cancer (unreported by western or pseudo-western media). In other words, anyone who supports sanctions on Iran basically wants cancer patients to die.

In February 2010, the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization proposed that the P5+1 [China, Russia, US, Britain, France and Germany] provide fuel rods for the Tehran research reactor, which is a reactor that was built by Americans and is used for medical isotopes for 800,000 patients struggling with cancer. They need fuel rods to continue to run this nuclear facility. Iranians proposed that we would not increase the level of enrichment beyond 5% if P5+1 would provide the fuel rods. In order to build the fuel rods, you need at least 20% enrichment. This was Iran’s proposal that we would keep enrichment below 5%. We don’t want to have high level enrichment. We don’t want to enrich 20%. Instead, give us the fuel rods. But the Western countries declined.

Iran had no other option but to increase the level of enrichment to 20%. Now people say that because we enriched up to 20%, we must want to build a nuclear bomb. This is the story you read everywhere in the media. But they don’t tell you the truth. In September 2011, the Iranian foreign minister and president came to New York for the United Nations assembly, and they made a proposal to the U.S. and the West. They said, ‘Now that we have 20%, we are ready to stop. We are ready to go back to 3.5% if you provide us with the fuel rods, because about a million patients with cancer need it.’ The U.S. declined.

It was the Iranian proposal to stop enriching at 20% and go back to below 5%. As long as enrichment is below 5%, there is no danger of any nuclear weapon at all. Everybody knows this. But because the U.S. refused our proposal, Iran had to build its own fuel rods to run this American-made Tehran medical research reactor.